On Aug 9, 2016 7:09 PM, "James Bottomley" < james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 15:24 +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > > table development go under copyleft-next, Rusty recently asked for > > > code to go in prior to the license tag being added denoting this > > > license as GPL-compatible [3] -- I had noted in the patch > > > submission which annotated copyleft-next's compatibility to GPLv2 > > > that copyleft-next is the license of choice for ongoing kernel > > > development on my end [4]. If this is objectionable I'm happy to > > > change it to GPLv2 however I'd like a reason provided as I've gone > > > through all possible channels to ensure this is kosher, including > > > vetting by 3 attorneys now, 2 at SUSE. > > > > You don't need a new tag, you can use "GPL" or "GPL and additional > > rights". In fact you don't want any other tag because when combined > > with the kernel it is GPLv2 anyway because the only way the two are > > fully compatible is for the kernel community to license the derived > > work under the GPL. > > This is the module tag ... it says what licence the module is under, > not the licence for the module combined with the kernel, which is > always GPLv2 because the stricter licence rules.
Then why isn't "BSD" in the license_is_gpl_compatible list?
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
